[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> MH (Bangladesh) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 244 (09 February 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/244.html Cite as: [2016] EWCA Civ 244

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		9 February 2016

1. LADY JUSTICE KING: This is a second appeal by Mohammed Hussain, who was born on 5 May 1984, against a refusal to allow him to remain in this country by a decision of 23 May 2013. The proposed appellant is aware of this hearing today and I understand has been in contact with the court this morning indicating he does not intend to come to court today. In those circumstances I am satisfied he has had adequate notice. I am told also he was offered the services of an interpreter and he has chosen not to come. He has however notified the court that he is unable to attend and has asked that the matter be considered in his absence.
2. The substantive issue is whether or not the Applicant should have been allowed leave to remain in the United Kingdom on grounds of family and private life, both under the Immigration Rules and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. He based his application on rule 276ADE(vi) of the 2012 Rules on the basis that he is aged 18 or above, has lived continuously in the UK for less than 20 years, but has no ties with the country to which he would have to go if required to leave the UK.
4. The matter was heard by the First-Tier Tribunal who refused his application. Subsequently this was confirmed by the Upper Tribunal and the matter then came before Kitchin LJ for consideration of an appeal to this court. I can do no better than adopt the reasons given by Kitchin LJ in his consideration of the application for permission to appeal and incorporate it into this short judgment:

i. "The only issue before the FTT was whether the appellant ought to be given leave to remain in the UK on article 8 grounds. The appellant failed on this issue on the evidence. The judge described his case as very weak and that his relationships were simply those of adult siblings. Moreover, there was no credible evidence that there would be unduly harsh consequences so far as right to private and family life was concerned were he be to returned. All of these findings were properly founded in the evidence.

ii. There were no exceptional circumstances and the appeal was dismissed. On appeal to the UT the appellant failed to appear and the appeal proceeded in his absence. There was no procedural unfairness in this because notice was sent to him by first class post to the correct address. In any event, his appearance could have made no difference to the outcome.

iii. The UT held correctly that the FTT had made no error in reaching its decision. The appellant now seeks to argue these points over again. An appeal would have no real prospect of success. Moreover, the appeal would not raise an important point of principle or practice and there is no other compelling reason for this court to hear it."

5. Having read the papers, the grounds of appeal in the skeleton argument prepared by the proposed appellant, I agree entirely with Kitchin LJ. This is an appeal which has no reasonable prospects of succeeding and does not satisfy the second appeal test. Accordingly, I refuse permission to appeal.